Not All Pro Athletes Thank God for the Big Win

Expressions of religiosity are common in professional sports, as athletes and fans frequently attribute touchdowns, home runs, and victories to divine intervention. (This is yet another area where God gets all the credit but none of the blame. When’s the last time you saw the losing team blame God for the loss?)

Expressions of secularity in professional sports, however, are so rare that they are apparently newsworthy. A case in point is that of Oakland Raiders punter Chris Kluwe, who made headlines simply by agreeing to speak at next year’s national conference of American Atheists. Somehow even in the twenty-first century, major American media outlets find open religious skepticism sufficiently controversial to merit headlines.

“By speaking at an atheist convention, Kluwe is putting himself pretty far outside the NFL mainstream,” reported NBC Sports, which pointed out that coaches frequently lead their teams in pre-game locker-room prayers. The Blaze went even further, calling Kluwe “controversial” and the “anti-Tebow,” and declaring that the atheist speaking gig “may be his most divisive step yet.” (Among Kluwe’s other “divisive” actions, according to the Blaze, were his endorsement of Obama and his support for same-sexmarriage.)

Interestingly, Kluwe identifies not as an atheist, but as "cheerfully agnostic," and in making the distinction he echoes a common misunderstanding. “Atheists confuse me,” he reportedly writes, going on to suggest that atheists are too sure of themselves. “It takes just as much faith to claim something unknowable isn’t real as it does to proclaim that it’s real.” Certainty on such questions is impossible, he says, so the atheist’s position would seem just as flawed as the believer's.

Kluwe's perception of atheism and agnosticism is a popular one, but it isn't quite accurate. The view that atheists claim to “know for certain” that gods don’t exist (the implication being that agnosticism is a more humble and reasonable position) is mistaken, because to be an atheist is to simply not believe in any gods – period. To be an atheist, it is not necessary to proclaim with any degree of certainty that God does not exist.

Unfortunately, the notion that atheists are so sure of themselves is not only incorrect, it also contributes to negative attitudes toward atheists. If atheists are so certain that God doesn't exist, it shouldn't surprise us that the public associates adjectives such as "arrogant" and "militant" with the atheist identity. (Even though, ironically, most nonbelievers are rather hesitant to openly express their skepticism!) Little wonder that so many atheists nevertheless avoid the identity.

Contrary to popular understanding, agnosticism is not really an alternative position to atheism. Whereas atheism addresses the singular issue of belief (“I do not believe in a god”), agnosticism addresses the wholly distinguishable issue of knowledge (“The question of a god is unknowable”). As such, agnosticism is not a more moderate position on the spectrum of belief, but instead is a position that does not even directly address the issue of belief at all. One can simultaneously be an agnostic and an atheist: “The question of a god is unknowable, but, as for myself, I don’t believe.”

In fact, with this framework, we can see that most agnostics are in fact atheists, whether they choose to identify that way or not. For many who identify as agnostic, including apparently Kluwe, the identity has an image of being less ardent, less certain, more humble. Perhaps such agnostics are trying to avoid the label “militant.” They should realize, however, that whether they choose to identify as atheist or not, if they do not in fact hold a god-belief, they are members of the club.

Quick- name me the punter for the Tampa Bay Bucs. Or the San Diego Chargers. Or the St. Louis Rams.

Can't? Of COURSE not! Even ardent football fans don't know who the punters are on most teams. Punters are pretty much faceless and interchangeable. NOBODY ever interviewed Ray Guy or Rich Camarillo. NOBODY ever put Reggie Roby or Rohn Stark on magazine covers. NOBODY ever sought out Shane Lechler's opinions on gay marriage, Obamacare or the Iraq war.

Normally, a secon-tier punter for the Minnesota Vikings would be completely anonymous. But because Chris Kluwe is an outspoken liberal, he's had no trouble getting media attention. He seems to relish it. Peter King of SPorts Illustrated, like many left-leaning sports journalists, has given Kluwe infinitely more attention than his so-so kicking skills ever warranted.

Of course, he's far from certain to win the punting job with the Raiders this season, you know. If, a few weeks from now, he's just another unemployed, mediocre punter, will sportswriter still be so eager to interview him?

If atheists were not so certain about their belief in the non-existent in God they would likely not have attempted to replace me.

Of course in attempting to replace me, that also means whomever they replace me with should be capable of creating viable solutions to your planets particular conditions. Now, windmills are a very aesthetic solution to the worlds energy problems. Not only do they use a large amount of resources, require a great amount of space, produce insufficient energy supplies to meet demand, but also you will find less and less birdshit on your cars.

I would appear as though you are aligning yourself with your 'god' in some kind of narcissistic self appointed narcissistic rant.

Atheist have never attempted to replace any of the 4700 gods with any explanation or entity of any kind. Their only statement are directly based on the facts that there is no evidence or proof of the existence of any gods since the written history of mankind.

You seem to be confusion Atheism with science. They are two completely separate concepts.

Although many Atheist do believe in science. Not all scientists are Atheists.

I appreciate your point about agnosticism being an epistemological position, not a statement of belief. However, in popular use "agnostic" connotes someone who isn't sure whether God exists. It may be an attempt to stake out a more humble position, as you say. But it seems to me that often it isn't (false?) humility, but an accurate expression of uncertainty. As a psychiatrist I've had ample evidence that beliefs are not binary, either present or absent. Sometimes they are implicit or ephemeral, as in a person who is areligious except around major religious holidays. A similar example is the "no atheists in foxholes" situation, where an extreme circumstance draws theism out of someone who is atheistic 99% of the time.

I'm not arguing that we continue to use "agnostic" to describe these apparently common situations. You're right, it's the wrong word to use. I simply wonder if there's a better word, or if perhaps "theism" and "atheism" make a rigid polarity out of a continuum. Thanks for your thought-provoking post.

1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2) a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

From the Greek word agnōstos which means unknown, unknowable.

Based on the etymology of the word and it's common usage I would say the Dave Niose is in correct.

An agnostic is someone who does not believe the existence of god is provable or knowable.

Another example of agnostic in the Greek sense is a man is on trial for murder. If I do not believe their is enough evidence to prove guilt or innocence then I am agnostic toward his guilt or innocence. Another person may believe in the guilt and another maybe believe in his innocence.

I read the sports everyday on USATODAY and Yahoo sports and yet I never saw this "headline" until I read this article. I can see how the author has a problem differentiate between agnostic and atheist since he seems to have a problem with the word "headline" which is less ambiguous than agnostic. A headline is typically the main story of the day. There is no evidence that this was the main story of the any day. In fact the reference is to "Shutdown Corner" which is a series of blogs by various people on yahoo sports. One person blogging something is not a headline.

I am typically not so nit picky but the author himself article is nit picky over Kluwe's comments.

Actually, a headline is not the "main story of the day," it is the words at the top of a story telling you what the story is about. Every story in the newspaper has a headline. So the Kluwe story did make headlines, some of them can be seen in the links in the story.

I used to jokingly say I was an apathetic agnostic - "I don't know and I don't care". In fact, as this article explains quite rationally, I am both agnostic and an atheist. The question is unknowable, but I believe that no gods exist, including the American/Christian version.

Atheists just want truth and will believe what is true and verified by our intellect and at least ONE of our five senses. Is it too much to ask for facts and evidence when being presented with outlandish and improbable claims?

It's very simple Dave. Agnostics base their reality on known facts and logic, and eschew ALL belief. And like Kluwe, they tend to religionists and atheists together in that they both adhere to a belief system - the former believes in a god, the latter believes there is no god. While it's easy to argue that one is sillier than the other, it's just a matter of degree - they both remain belief systems. As an agnostic, I don't "believe" there is no god - I've just never encountered any real evidence that there is one. To say "I don't believe in god" because of that lack of evidence makes no more logical sense than saying "I don't believe in evolution because there are still things about it we don't understand". Agnostics, basically, don't feel a need to draw a conclusion on something that's undetermined.

So yes, there is a fundamental difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheists take a position on god based on belief, just as religionists do. Agnostics take no position on god.

If there's anything I don't "believe" in, it's belief. That's why you and the author are wrong. To an agnostic, belief is nonsense. It's just another word for faith. If you "believe" there's no god, that's fine - you're a step ahead of the great-boogeyman-in-the-sky crowd. But you still cling to a belief system. I don't.

Your comments are a contradiction. As soon as you say your a step ahead of the boogeyman-in-the-sky-crowd are you not implying you do not believe in the bogeyman-in-the-sky-crowd which would make you what?

No contradiction at all. Since there's no extant evidence I am aware of that supports the existence of a god despite centuries of exploration and discovery, I naturally feel a greater affinity with the atheists than the religionists. Atheists are on the right track, but still hanging on to a belief system.

It appears this discussion is about semantics. In my experience, most self proclaimed atheist do not claim "There is no god". They proclaim they do not believe in a god because they have not been presented with evidence to convince them of such a being. I believe Richard Dawkins even falls into this camp. I think we are all on the same page here. I claim to be atheist for this same reason. I cannot say "There is no god" for all the same reasons that you have put forth. By my definition of atheism, I am an atheist. I think of atheist as meaning the same as non-theist. Once again, in my experience, this is how most self proclaimed atheist define the term. Most of the atheist I have run across are critical thinkers and they fully understand that they cannot rule out the possibility that there is some sort of god. If the atheist you have met are of the type that believe they have knowledge that there is no god, that is atypical of my experience.

The knowledge that Atheist have is that there is absolutely no evidence or proof of the existence of any of the 4700 gods that have been created by mankind over the written history of mankind on this planet.

That is not proof that gods do not exists, that is proof that evidence and proof does not exist to support gods. It is also not proof that god does not exist, it is proof there is no evidence that ALL gods do not exist.

This quote TOTALLY reminds me of the day a mentor and friend "suggested" I stop kidding myself and join the "club" and now I'm a good person just because. I know longer need men in fancy robes, a book, or the threat of hell to do what is right. I do what is right because I love my fellow living things and I want the world that we all live in to be a healthy and happy place. "Perhaps such agnostics are trying to avoid the label “militant.” They should realize, however, that whether they choose to identify as atheist or not, if they do not in fact hold a god-belief, they are members of the club."

In answer to your question early in the article, a few years ago Stevie Johnson of the Buffalo Bills blame God on twitter after dropping a pass in the end zone that would have won the game for the Bills.

...because I would really, genuinely LIKE for there to be a loving, compassionate and all-knowing God, but over the decades I just can't reconcile the indifferent brutality of the natural world and the brutality of relations between human beings... with the idea that there is a sentient Creator being who designed all this shocking brutality and is simply observing His/Her creations suffer with utter indifference.

My own personal belief is that existence is Chaos. But the reality that at any random moment for no reason at all we could die, or our home, our family, our life as we know it could just suddenly be obliterated by a sudden massive solar flare, or by a nuclear attack, or by the earth cracking open from a super-volcano, or by a sudden severe heart attack or by a drunk driver, by a stray bullet, etc.... that reality is SO utterly terrifying and so utterly depressing that we human beings can't function adequately in such a state of fear, despair and hopelessness. Despair is counter-survival.

Human beings NEED to believe that we have at least SOME control over our own existence, and SOME hope for our future,

We will even settle for the *illusion* of having control, so we make constant efforts to impose Order on the terrifyingly indifferent Chaos by means of Religion (bad things happen, but its God's will and we can't know His ultimate purpose)... or we make efforts to Classify, Organize, and Explain the nature of our universe and our existence as we know it by means of Science.

Believing that we can understand and explain and predict even a tiny fraction of reality gives us that feeling that we can prepare for and survive disasters; we can even develop the feeling that we can succeed and even thrive, and that gives our existence meaning, and hope, and the courage to keep trying to stay alive, to love, to contribute in positive ways during our lifespan, and make new generations.

Having even the illusion that we have even a little control over our own environment and our own destiny makes us mammals healthier, both physically and mentally.

Animal studies with rats show this: in an experiment, two separate rat groups were subjected to low-grade but unpleasant shocks at random intervals. One rat group was given a warning first, a flashing light would signal to them that a shock would occur in 2 seconds. That rat group was measurably healthier both mentally and physically than the rat group that received no warnings at all. The rats forced to live in Chaos, having NO means at all to predict when the shocks would occur, therefor having NO means of even preparing emotionally for the shocks (aka NO control at all over their own fate) were depressed, nervous physical and emotional wrecks.

So, from my point of view, the purpose of both Religion and Science is to impose Order on the Chaos, and give us the illusion that we have at least some control over our human existence and our fate.

The best we can do is exercise what control we can exercise over our daily affairs, unless and until trumped by a greater power - and by that, I don't mean a supernatural boogieman, but a government, a gang, or even a more potent individual. As for science vs. religion, I find the latter far more dangerous. It presents adherents with the illusion of immediate control, whereas science seeks to understand the workings of nature, opening a pathway to control.

While I agree with your assessments, all I can conclude is that humans are dangerously unstable if they rely on illusion to remain healthy. Hopefully this is just an acquired weakness that further evolution will extricate.

I think your argument is wrong and therefore also your conclusion. You make a divergence between belief and knowledge - but what is belief without knowledge and knowledge without belief?

Belief is knowledge and knowledge is belief.

You cannot both believe that the question is unanswerable by man today or forever and believe that an answer has been found - this is not an agnostic position or a position a true atheist would take. Either a man believes in no Gods or believes the question unanswerable - no man can contain in him the contradiction if he really were to consider his belief.

Either I believe that murder is wrong (or right) or I believe that the question is unanswerable - not both at the same time.

An agnostic would feel the question unanswerable and as such, subscribe to no particular position on the existence of a God of some form, while an atheist would subscribe to the belief that there is no God. Anything else is a confusion of terms.

The theists feels that the argument, I cannot prove there is a God or that there is not a God, therefore there is a God holds.
The atheist feels that the argument, I cannot prove there is a God or that there is not a God, therefore there is not a God holds.
The agnostic feels himself unable to draw a conclusion from the premise and as such can subscribe to neither theism or atheism (or deism).

Belief is tightly connected with knowledge - unless a man is himself God, he will only have belief and all his supposed knowledge will be based on belief - not a direct access to truth, which could confirm or deny the matter at hand. Knowledge is a belief which we feel ourselves sure enough of to call knowledge - but it has no place of insight above our other forms of beliefs and opinions. Therefore, you cannot be an agnostic atheist just as you cannot be an agnostic theist. It is a confusion of terms in my opinion.

faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

belief n. convinced of the truth of a statement or allegation. In a common phrase "upon information and belief," the so-called belief is based only on unconfirmed information, so the person declaring the belief is hedging his/her bet as to whether the belief is correcthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/belief

So is it belief or knowledge to believe (should be a hint) that the Earth is flat, that the Sun orbits around the Earth, that man as a species is a product of evolution, that the universe works in the form of a space-time continuum, that the use of fossile fuels does not contribute to heating up the globe f.ex.?

That one has conformed so heavily to what people have told one does not make it knowledge; it only makes it a belief that one feels sure enough of to call knowledge, but it does not mean that one has anymore access to truth than other people.

That the earth isn't flat is a fact, not a belief - it's something that's been verified both mathematically and by direct observation. The earth orbiting the sun, human evolution and space/time are theories - hypotheses that fit all the known evidence. They verge on being facts, but until proven, they remain theories.

However, ALL of the above constitute knowledge, as they are supported by evidence. Belief has no supporting evidence. As it applies to atheism vs. agnosticism, trying to convince me that there is NO god is on the same level with trying to convince me there IS a god. In both cases, you're trying to convince me of something that you don't even know for a fact, which is pretty silly.

And yes, there are militant, proselytizing atheists just as there are militant, proselytizing Christians, and in my view both are equally irrational and generally obnoxious.

That babies are delivered by storks is a belief, i.e. it is unsupported by any evidence. That they are the result of fertilization and gestation is knowledge, i.e. it is not only supported by all known evidence, but has been proven by countless examples. Belief is a weak substitute for knowledge, nothing more, and the terms certainly aren't interchangeable.

You seem fairly reasonable so ill ask you, do you see that the term "knowledge" does not apply in situations where one is trying to determine the truth of something, ie. the existence of God?

One person can know that God exists while the other person can know that God does not exist - are any of them able to give final evidence as to their theory or is it still just a belief that they both feel sure enough of to call knowledge for themselves?

In old times, people knew that the Sun orbited around the Earth and that man came from God - then there were some crazy people who started believing (note the term) that the Earth orbited around the Sun and that man did not come from God personally - know we claim those of the old opinions believed in their theories while those believing in their newer opinions to know their beliefs in essence. Do you see that it is always the same wandering and searching in the dark? Whether someone calls ones beliefs to be knowledge or not depends pretty much on one's own judgement of it - not of any actual link to a well of truth.

Knowledge and belief are simply not the same thing. Medieval europeans *thought* they knew this and that. Fact is, they didn't. We KNOW that today because of the scientific method. THAT is the difference - with the advent of science and systematic logic, we can test whether someone actually knows something or is just fooling him/herself.

How many times have you heard someone say "It's going to rain tomorrow - I just KNOW it." Really?? Who knew there were so many prescient people out there, and why aren't they all making a killing in stocks?

I looked up the definition on m-w.com and found that an atheist is "one who believes that there is no deity". (It should be noted that belief in the absence of a deity is not the same thing as an absence of a belief in a deity.)

(The broad dictionary definition of an agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.)

Moreover, the Merriam-Webster definition of an atheist is the one that most people use.

Unfortunately for the author, we can't change the definitions of words to suit our purposes. I wonder if the author's real goal is to influence more people into using and accepting the label of "atheist" when they really mean "agnostic". But I think it's unethical for him to misinform people and waste their time.

It's nice that the football player likes Obama and gay marriage. But is any of that relevant to the discussion, or is it all intended to make atheism seem politically correct?

Unfortunately for the author, many atheists have a poor public image because they seem strident, argumentative, and overly emotional, just like some religious extremists.

You cherry-pick to find a definition that suits your agenda, but the author's definition is valid. The Oxford dictionary, and many others, defines atheist as "a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

We are always trying to put labels on people and we typically labeling people for our own convenience. The author is trying to say that agnostics are really atheist. I believe the author is right that many agnostics are atheist, however, just because people are misapplying the term to themselves does not mean the words are interchangeable. I have had several Christians label me as agnostics but not atheist. I have also had people label my views as nihilist. The point of this is that labels are convenient but what we gain in convenience we lose in accuracy. Also as humans we do not like ambiguity. Labeling people is an attempt to rid ourselves of this ambiguity. It also helps in labeling people friend or foe which I believe is the unconscious intent of labeling in many cases.

What the author seems to be trying to do is either make you a theist or an atheist just like conservatives and liberal want to label you the opposite as soon as you are out of line. The difference between the two is to an atheist and theist you either believe in god or you don't. Conservatives and liberals have several beliefs.

An agnostic may not believe in god but they do not seem as hostile or condescending towards those who do believe in god which may be the reason people have called me an agnostic. Please note that those who believe in god are often hostile towards those who are not. From my perspective I see the same behavior in atheist and theist.

On another note although there are lots of atheist if not most who were not communist almost all if not all communist were atheist so it would take allot to convince me that atheist are people who use evidence and truth to come to a conclusion. Communism required "belief" absent of evidence and sometimes belief in spite of evidence. We all have beliefs which we can not substantiate which is what Socrates was trying to point out thousands of years ago.

Seems to me that people who declare that they have faith in some god or over are really not all that sure. That's why they clutch at straws like the face of Jesus on a piece of toast or the Virgin Mary on a griddle etc. When an airplane crashes and there is a single survivor, you can bet your bottom dollar that he will state that he prayed and that God saved him. No mention is ever made of the 100 who prayed and died.